- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31092 WP No. 26665 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 26665 OF 2024 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. ALLA BAKASH S/O LATE HUSSAIN SAB AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 2. SMT. SYEDA BEE W/O LATE DASTAGIR SAB AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS 3. SMT. JAIBUN @ AMMU W/O LATE SHEIKH MUNAWAR AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 4. SRI. ISMAIL S/O LATE HUSSAIN SAB AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 5. SRI. ADAM S/O LATE HUSSAIN SAB AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 6. SRI. PYARE JAN S/O LATE HUSSAIN SAB AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS PETITIONER NOs.1 TO 6 ARE R/AT NO.20, KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE KADUGODI POST, K.R.PURAM HOBLI BENGALURU EAST - 560 067. 7. SMT. HASSINA W/O SYED ANWAR AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.50 Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31092 WP No. 26665 of 2024 KANAKAPPA LAYOUT 1ST CROSS, NEAR OM SHAKTHI TEMPLE MEDAHALLI, VIRGONAGAR BENGALURU - 560 049. 8. SMT. SALIMA, W/O MEHABOOB SAB AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT NO.24, SURAPPANAHALLI CHICKBALLAPURA - 563 128. &PETITIONERS (BY SRI. JANARDHANA G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP) N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU 560 002. 2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP) MAHADEVAPURA ZONE, MAHADEVAPURA BENGALURU - 560 048. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP) HOODI SUB DIVISION, BENGALURU 560 048. 4. THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP) HOODI WARD-54, MAHADEVAPURA ZONE BENGALURU - 560 048. 5. SRI.K.N.MANJUNATH S/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT KATHA NO.23 KODIGEHALLI, KADUGODI POST BENGALURU - 560 067. &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BATHE GOWDA K.V., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. BASAVARAJ M., ADVOCATE FOR R5) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31092 WP No. 26665 of 2024 THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT RESPONDENT NOs.1 TO 4 RESTORE THE PETITIONERS DAMAGED BUILDING TO THE ORIGINAL CONDITION AFTER RECONSTRUCTING THE SAME AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER The case of the petitioners is that they are the owners of the writ petition schedule property with a constructed building thereon. It is contended that at the behest of respondent no.5, respondent nos.1 to 4-Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) have illegally demolished a portion of the building standing on the writ petition schedule property. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed with the following prayers: "a) Issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 to restore the petitioners damaged building to the original condition after reconstructing the same; b) Issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 not to damage any portion of the building on the schedule property. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31092 WP No. 26665 of 2024 c) Grant any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant to the petitioner in the circumstances of the case." 2. It is further contended by the petitioners that whatever demolition has done by respondent nos.1 to 4 has been done on the ground that respondent no.5 approached Lokayukta and the directions were issued by Lokayukta to respondent nos.1 to 4 and it is also contended that Lokayukta does not have the jurisdiction to decide a civil dispute. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contend that petitioners have illegally encroached upon a public road and they have put up an illegal construction and the same has been removed in accordance with law and on the said ground, they pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Based on the prayers made in the writ petition, the factual issues that arises for consideration are: (1) Whether construction on the schedule property was put up in accordance with law or not? (2) Whether there was any encroachment of the public road by petitioners or not? - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31092 WP No. 26665 of 2024 (3) Whether BBMP has followed the due procedure in demolishing a portion of the building as alleged by the petitioners or not? 5. The aforementioned issues are factual issues which can be decided only upon the concerned parties adducing the necessary evidence, which cannot be gone into by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of Constitution of India. The petitioners, under the circumstances are required to approach the jurisdictional Civil Court for appropriate remedy. 6. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is hereby dismissed reserving the liberty to the petitioners to approach the Civil Court in the manner known to law; (ii) It is needless to state that respondent nos.1 to 4-BBMP, if chose to act against the petitioners shall do so only in accordance with law and dismissal of the writ petition is not a permission for them to take any action in violation of law as apprehended by the petitioners; and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31092 WP No. 26665 of 2024 (iii) Even when acting as per the directions of Lokayukta, necessary enquiry shall be conducted by respondent nos.1 to 4 by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners before initiating any action against them and action will be initiated only in accordance with law. In view of dismissal of main petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12